The statement by US Ambassador in Pakistan at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) on November 25, 2011 that “Pak-Iran gas pipeline is not a good idea….however, the plan to get gas from Turkmenistan is a better idea”   was not mere reiteration of economic interests of the United States and its allies—it has serious political connotations as well in an area that has always been the battlefield of the Great Game. Pakistan government reacted strongly against Cameron Munter’s statement saying “Islamabad will not accept any dictation regarding its internal affairs from any foreign country. Gas from Iran is in the country’s best interest”.

After India’s pull out of [1]Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline project (IPI), wooed by the US through the civil nuclear deal, both China and Russia have shown interest in the project—Russian gas-export monopoly Gazprom and China National Petroleum Corporation have promised to help building the 780-kilometer pipeline.  It is worrisome for the US and its allies that China and Russian are emerging as supporters of IPI—their cooperation with Iran would certainly be harmful for American geopolitical interests in this region.

Pakistan Federal Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources, Dr. Asim Hussain, in a TV interview in October 2011, said: “Our dependence on Pak-Iran pipeline is very high and there is no other substitute at present to meet the growing demand of the energy”. This statement irritated the Unites States, which has been pleading the case for Turkmenistan Gas project [2](TAPI) since 1990s. The TAPI was initially designed to provide Turkmen gas to Pakistan through Afghanistan. In April 2008, India was also invited to join in. Pakistan’s cabinet gave approval to the Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement (GPFA) for the TAPI in its meeting on October 27, 2010. On November 13, 2011, Pakistan and Turkmenistan initiated the Gas Sales and Purchase Agreement ([3]GSPA), which is likely to operationalize the multi-nation project by 2016. The two countries signed a total of five agreements and memoranda of understandings (MoUs).

The US and its allies want Pakistan to abdicate [4]IPI and pursue TAPI alone. This is not only unacceptable to Pakistan, Iran, China and Russia have also serious apprehensions about this project as main financial control over Turkmenistan gas reserves is with Western giant companies. Additionally, its viability is doubtful as pipeline will pass through Taliban-controlled regions and Pakistan’s troubled border regions. The cost as compared to IPI is also too high—Turkmenistan originally estimated total cost at $3.3bn, later raised it to $ 7.6 billion, while other estimates are as high as $10bn.

Iran wants to diversify gas sales to Asian markets and Asian countries. Tehran’s projection of IPI as peace pipeline has support of Russia and China. While regional powers desire to find a stable, reliable source of gas supplies, America and allies want to destabilize the entire region using militancy as a tool of foreign policy objective. The tussle over IPI and TAPI is, thus, not a mere economic battle but have far-reaching geopolitical dimensions. India’s betrayal under US pressure is a cause of concern for regional powers—now China and Russia are supporting Pakistan to withstand US pressure for non-participation in IPI.

It is a matter of record that much before 9/11, the US and its NATO allies decided to invade Afghanistan. The decision to this effect was taken inBerlinduring the joint meeting of Council of Ministers held in November 2000.  It exposes the claims of US and coalition partners that 9/11 was the sole reason for invading Afghanistan. The actual cause was apprehensions regarding Turkmenistan Gas Pipeline Project in which powerful corporate entities, who actually rule US and other capitalist countries, had financial interests.

George W. Bush appointed former aide to the American oil company UNOCAL, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul. This appointment underscored the real economic and financial interests at stake in the USmilitary intervention in Central Asia. Khalilzad was intimately involved in the long-running USefforts to obtain direct access to the oil and gas resources of the region, largely unexploited but believed to be the second largest in the world after the Persian Gulf[5].

As an advisor for UNOCAL, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed gas pipeline from the former Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. He participated in talks between UNOCAL and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan. UNOCAL was the lead company in the formation of the Centgas consortium, whose purpose was to bring to market natural gas from the Dauletabad Field in southeastern a 48-inch diameter pipeline from the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border, passing near the cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta and linking with existing pipelines at Multan Turkmenistan, one of the world’s largest energy reserves.

The IPI and TAPI are symbols of New Great Game—the main goal of which is gaining control of oil and gas reserves in this region. ”The hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil/gas. The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world’s principal energy sources in the 21st century. It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America’s Chevron, Exxon, and Arco; France’s TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region.”[6]

This is the ugly reality of the ongoing war over IPI and TAPI. It unveils the hidden agenda of US and its allies to grab oil and gas resources for their economic interests benefiting huge multinational corporations in which the Western ruling elites have substantial interest.

The tragedy that struck the world ten years ago—wanton attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Centre by terrorists on 11 September 2011 in New York—is still haunting humanity. The world as a whole since then suffers from what Erich Fromm termed as ‘Fear of Freedom’—the terrorists wanted to create an atmosphere of fear, terrorism and mistrust in which they succeeded. During the last 10 years, the United States and its allies are engaged in ‘war on terror’ (sic) without much success. The recent reports suggest that they now want settlement with Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. It is strange that instead of uprooting the causes of terrorism, the mighty States are bowing before these merchants of death. The obscurantists want to impose their way of life on others. They are giving permits to paradise to their followers and condemnation of hell to their opponents. This thinking is the root cause of conflict and terrorism. They have no jurisdiction to pass such edicts—Allah has not delegated any such authority to anybody. It is self-assumed jurisdiction which, if not surrendered voluntarily or taken away from them by law, will keep on creating fas’ad-fil-ardh—the Quranic term for disorder on Earth. It is termed as the most heinous crime against humanity by Allah and State is ordained to punish the miscreants with full force.

It is the duty of all the States to counter terrorism and educate the people that nobody has a right to use force for imposing his faith and thinking on others. In the aftermath of 9/11, the use of force by US and its allies against innocent civilians is as condemnable as are unabated shameful attacks all over the world by terrorists—both posing great threat to global peace. The war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban (enjoying networking with many Jihadi groups)—having hubs in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere—cannot be won unless their financial lifeline is destroyed. These networks in the name of religion are minting enormous money, even if its coming from organised crime. This aspect remains improperly investigated by domestic and international intelligence communities. Since Al Qaeda and its allied groups have not been uprooted financially, they are wining more and more sympathizers in the US, the Western countries and elsewhere. With money and global networks, they are planning to attack all the major countries of the world. Strangely, their main targets are not only the US and Western countries—for their obvious participation in ‘war against terror’—but also India, China and Iran. It appears that ‘Islamic Card Policy’ of the ’80s, which helped the US to dismantle the hostile Marxist USSR, has still some unfinished agenda. The next target is financially and militarily strong China—it recently claimed that terrorists who conducted attacks in Kashgar were trained in Pakistan.

The questions that irk everybody’s mind are:

• Where do these terrorists get so much money from?
• Why are the governments not serious in cracking down on unlawful transfer of funds?
• If banking channels are used, why then cannot the remitters and recipients be traced?
• If hawala and hundi are used for unlawful cross border transfer of funds, why persons engaged in these unlawful activities are not arrested and punished?
• Who are financing these terrorist networks?
• Who provides these terrorists with sophisticated arms and military training?

It is a well-established fact that the terrorist networks remit millions of dollars every year from bank accounts maintained in various countries in fictitious names. This money in their hands makes them invincible. According to James Petras, Professor of Sociology, Binghamton University, New York, there is a consensus among the US congressional investigators, former bankers and international banking experts that the US and the European banks launder between $500 billion and $1 trillion of dirty money each year, half of which is laundered by the US banks alone. These yearly inflows surpass all the net transfers by the major US oil producers, military industries and aircraft manufacturers. The biggest US banks derive a high percentage of their banking profits from serving these criminal and dirty money accounts. The big US banks and key institutions sustain the US global power via their money laundering and managing of illegally obtained overseas funds. The first thing to note about the money-laundering business, whether criminal or corrupt, is that the most important banks in the USA carry it out. Secondly, the practices of bank officials involved in money laundering have the highest level of backing of the banking institutions – these are not isolated cases by loose canons.

All the big banks specializing in international fund transfer are called money centre banks, some of the biggest, process up to $1 trillion in wire transfers a day. For the billionaire criminals an important feature of correspondent relationships is that they provide access to international transfer systems –that facilitate the rapid transfer of funds across international boundaries and within countries. The most recent estimates (2010) are that 60 offshore jurisdictions around the world licensed about 4,000 offshore banks that control approximately $65 trillion in assets. This is the real ground situation whereas we daily hear from official quarters in USA and elsewhere making big claims about WAR ON TERROR. This is all eyewash. In reality, all the financial institutions and even the State structure are subservient to these billionaires. The ruthless arms and drug barons, who know how to move money from one part of the world to another, buy government functionaries, control politicians, law enforcement officials and use terrorists to cripple the State structures.

The US government knows how trillions are laundered through banks in America, yet it does not take any action. The reason is obvious: it would dismantle its economic might. Professor James Petras in Enormous By Any Measure has revealed that “Washington and the mass media have portrayed the U.S. as being in the forefront of the struggle against narco trafficking, drug laundering and political corruption: the image is of clean white hands fighting dirty money. The truth is exactly the opposite. U.S. banks have developed a highly elaborate set of policies for transferring illicit funds to the U.S., investing those funds in legitimate businesses or U.S. government bonds and legitimating them. The U.S. Congress has held numerous hearings, provided detailed exposés of the illicit practices of the banks, passed several laws and called for stiffer enforcement by any number of public regulators and private bankers. Yet the biggest banks continue their practices, the sum of dirty money grows exponentially, because both the State and the banks have neither the will nor the interest to put an end to the practices that provide high profits and buttress an otherwise fragile empire”.

The stance of the US government is different. It claims to be committed to taking strict action against illicit money and terrorists. President Bush signed Executive Order 13224 on September 23, 2001. The official site of US government says “Executive Order 13224 gives the U.S. Government a powerful tool to impede terrorist funding and is part of our national commitment to lead the international effort to bring a halt to the evil of terrorist activity”. President Bush issued Executive Order 13224 pursuant to the authorities of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), section 5 of the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, as amended (22 U.S.C. 287c)(UNPA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code. In issuing Executive Order 13224, President Bush declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States posed by grave acts of terrorism and threats of terrorism committed by foreign terrorists, including the terrorist attacks in New York and Pennsylvania, and on the Pentagon committed on September 11, 2001, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on U.S. nationals or the United States.

The website further claims that “In general terms, the Order provides a means by which to disrupt the financial support network for terrorists and terrorist organizations by authorizing the U.S. government to designate and block the assets of foreign individuals and entities that commit, or pose a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism. In addition, because of the pervasiveness and expansiveness of the financial foundations of foreign terrorists, the Order authorizes the U.S. government to block the assets of individuals and entities that provide support, services, or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists and terrorist organizations designated under the Order, as well as their subsidiaries, front organizations, agents, and associates”.

The details about Executive Order 13224, orders passed so far under it and list of individuals and organisations listed are available on the following:

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/122570.htm

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/other/des/143210.htm

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/terror.pdf

Like the Department of Treasury, the US State Department has also the authority to designate individuals and entities under Executive Order 13224. Below are all E.O. 13324 listings designated by the Department of State as on 16 August 2011:

Individuals and Entities Designated by the State Department under E.O. 13224: (91)

State Department Entities Designated by the President: (8)

Complete list of all E.O. 13224 designations, including those listed by the Department of the Treasury, are available at website of the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). OFAC of the US Department of the Treasury administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotic traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States. OFAC acts under Presidential national emergency powers, as well as authority granted by specific legislation, to impose controls on transactions and freeze assets under US jurisdiction. Many of the sanctions based on United Nations and other international mandates, are multilateral in scope, and involve close cooperation with allied governments.

Recently, the US Department of the Treasury targeted the financial and support networks of Al-Qaida, the Taliban and the Haqqani Network leadership by designating Said Jan ‘Abd Al-Salam and Khalil Al-Rahman Haqqani, two Afghan individuals, as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs) under Executive Order (E.O.) 13224.  Al-Salam was designated for acting for or on behalf of al-Qaida and for providing support to the Taliban; and Haqqani was designated for acting for or on behalf of the Taliban, for providing support to al-Qaida and for acting for or on behalf of Sirajuddin Haqqani. As a result of this action, U.S. persons are prohibited from engaging in any transactions with these individuals, and any assets they hold under U.S. jurisdiction have been frozen. “Khalil Al-Rahman Haqqani, who is among the Haqqani Network’s most important figures and fundraisers, and Said Jan ‘Abd Al-Salam have engaged in activities in support of the Taliban and al-Qaida,” said Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart Levey.  “These actions exposes two consequential sources of financial and tactical support for these terrorist organizations and is part of a larger US and international effort to degrade their capabilities”, claimed Mr. Stuart Levey.

A Press release of US Treasury Department on May 11, 2011 claims that:

“Said Jan ‘Abd Al-Salam 

Said Jan ‘Abd Al-Salam has provided funds to the Taliban and al-Qaida and has facilitated training and weapons acquisition for al-Qa’ida. In 2008, he collected thousands of dollars in financial donations for al-Qa’ida and the Taliban and in 2009 transferred funds to members of a Pakistani extremist group for al-Qa’ida. In 2007 and 2008, Al-Salam provided thousands of dollars to the Taliban in Wardak Province, Afghanistan. In 2007, Al-Salam served as an al-Qa’ida commander’s primary assistant and facilitator and was tasked by an al-Qa’ida commander to procure weapons. Around 2005, Al-Salam ran a basic training camp for al-Qa’ida in Pakistan. In addition, he hosted individuals who sought to participate in weapons and explosives training and al-Qa’ida indoctrination. Al-Salam has also served as an interlocutor between al-Qa’ida and the Taliban. In response to a 2006 order from an al-Qa’ida commander, Al-Salam contacted Taliban-affiliated individuals and the following year passed a message from an al-Qa’ida commander to a senior Taliban member.

Khalil Al-Rahman Haqqani

A senior member of the Haqqani Network, Khalil Haqqani engages in fundraising activities on behalf of the Taliban and provides support to the Taliban operating in Afghanistan. As of early 2010, he provided funds to Taliban cells in Logar Province, Afghanistan. In 2009, Khalil Haqqani was one of several people responsible for the detention of enemy prisoners captured by the Taliban and the Haqqani Network. Khalil Haqqani has taken orders for Taliban operations from his nephew Sirajuddin Haqqani, who was designated by the U.S. in March 2008 pursuant to E.O. 13224. Khalil Haqqani has also acted on behalf of al-Qa’ida and has been linked to al-Qa’ida military operations. In 2002, he was deploying men to reinforce al-Qa’ida elements in Paktia Province, Afghanistan.

The Haqqani Network

The Haqqani Network is a Taliban-affiliated militant group operating from Pakistan. At the forefront of insurgent activity in Afghanistan, the Haqqani Network was founded by Khalil Haqqani’s brother, Jalaluddin Haqqani, who joined Mullah Omar’s Taliban regime in the mid-1990s. Jalaluddin Haqqani was designated by the UN 1267 Committee in January 2001. Khalil Haqqani is also a fundraiser for the Haqqani Network, often travelling internationally to meet with financial supporters.  As of September 2009, Khalil Haqqani had traveled to Dubai, United Arab Emirates and had raised funds from sources there, as well as from sources in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and China.

Identifying Information:

Individual:                  Said Jan ‘Abd Al-Salam

AKA:                          Sa’id Jan ‘Abd-al-Salam

AKA:                          Qazi ‘Abdallah

AKA:                          Qazi Abdullah

AKA:                          Ibrahim Walid

AKA:                          Dilawar Khan Zain Khan

AKA:                          Qasi Sa’id Jan

AKA:                          Said Jhan

AKA:                          Farhan Khan

AKA:                           Aziz Cairo

AKA:                           Nangiali

DOB:                          February 5, 1981

Alt. DOB:                       January 1, 1972

Nationality:                     Afghan

Passport:                        Afghanistan, #OR801168; Issued February 28, 2006;

Expires February 27, 2011 (under name Said Jan ‘Abd al-Salam)

Alt Passport:                     Pakistan, #4117921; Issued September 9, 2008;

Expires September 9, 2013 (under name Dilawar Khan Zain Khan)

ID:                             Kuwait Civil Identification #281020505755

(under name Said Jan ‘Abd al-­Salam)

Individual:                  Khalil Al-Rahman Haqqani

AKA:                           Khalil ur Rahman Haqqani

AKA:                           Khaleel Haqqani

AKA:                           Khalil Ahmad Haqqani

DOB:                            January 1, 1966

Alt. DOB:                       1958 – 1964

Nationality:                      Afghan

Address:                         Peshawar, Pakistan

Alt. Address:                      Near Dirgha Mundei Madrassa in Dirgha Mundei Village,

near Miram Shah, North Waziristan Agency (NWA), Federally

Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Pakistan

Alt. Address:                     Kayla Village, near Miram Shah, NWA, FATA, Pakistan

Alt. Address:                     Sarana Zadran Village, Paktia Province, Afghanistan​

The U.S. Department of the Treasury also designated the New Ansari Money Exchange, a major money laundering vehicle for Afghan narcotics trafficking organizations, along with 15 affiliated individuals and entities under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act (Kingpin Act). The New Ansari Money Exchange is at the center of an unofficial network of individuals, money exchange houses and other businesses operating throughout Afghanistan and in the United Arab Emirates. Between 2007 and 2010, the New Ansari Money Exchange used the billions of dollars it transferred in and out of Afghanistan to conceal illicit narcotics proceeds. The New Ansari Money Exchange transfers money to its Dubai subsidiaries, Green Leaf General Trading LLC and Al Adal Exchange, which then transfer money through the U.S. and international financial systems”.

The US Treasury designation (cited above) is an important step in Obama administration’s ongoing efforts to target money laundering and narcotics trafficking activity in Afghanistan. According to Mr. Stuart Levey, “We will continue to work to expose the funding and support mechanisms for such illicit activity, and to take actions to safeguard the U.S. and Afghan financial sectors from abuse.”

Elements of the New Ansari network have laundered money for Haji Azizullah Alizai and the Haji Juma Khan Organization, both identified as Significant Foreign Narcotics Traffickers by the President in June 2007 and May 2009, respectively.  Haji Azizullah Alizai is a major heroin trafficker and supplier in Southwest Asia and the Middle East.   The Haji Juma Khan Organization is international opium, morphine, and heroin trafficking organization based in the border regions of Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

As a result of action by Treasury Department, U.S. persons are prohibited from conducting financial or commercial transactions with these individuals and entities, and any assets the designees may have under U.S. jurisdiction are frozen. The investigation that led to these designations was the result of collaborative efforts of Treasury, the Afghan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The ATFC is a tactically focused, interagency fusion center that collects, analyzes and disseminates relevant financial intelligence on individuals and organizations involved in financing the insurgency.

“The New Ansari network is yet another example of money launderers exploiting legitimate financial systems to launder their ill-gotten gains, including illicit drug proceeds, as part of their criminal enterprise,” said DEA Administrator Michele M. Leonhart.  “Cash is the ultimate commodity for these criminal networks, and these proceeds often fuel insurgent activity and corruption, while undermining the authority of developing governments.  DEA’s investigation into this network and subsequent OFAC designation illustrates our joint commitment to exposing these rogue businesses and dismantling their operations.”

The individuals designated include several who play key roles in the New Ansari Money Exchange, including Haji Abdullah Barakzai Ansari, the founder of the New Ansari Money Exchange; Haji Mohammad Khan, the manager of the New Ansari Money Exchange; Haji Mohammad Jan, the day-to-day manager of the New Ansari network; Haji Noorullah, a stakeholder and director of the New Ansari Money Exchange; Haji Mohammad Noor, the manager of the New Ansari Money Exchange subsidiaries in Dubai; and Haji Mohammad Rafi Azimi. Key cash couriers Eissa Jan Haji Abdul Qayoum and Rahmatullah Mohammad Afzal were also designated. Between December 2009 and January 2010, Rahmatullah Mohammad Afzal transferred $94 million from Afghanistan to Dubai for the New Ansari Money Exchange.  Treasury also designated Ahmad Shah Hakimi, and his business, Ahmad Shah Money Exchange, which has been used by Hakimi to launder money for the New Ansari Money Exchange following its January 2010 raid in Kabul by Afghan authorities.

These actions are part of Treasury’s ongoing efforts to use the Kingpin Act to target the financial and support networks of narcotics traffickers worldwide.  Internationally, the Treasury Department has designated more than 900 businesses and individuals linked to 87 drug kingpins since June 2000.  Penalties for violations of the Kingpin Act range from civil penalties of up to $1.075 million per violation to serious criminal penalties.  For criminal violations, corporate officers may receive up to 30 years in prison and fines up to $5 million and criminal fines for corporations may reach $10 million.  Other individuals face up to 10 years in prison and fines pursuant to Title 18 of the United States Code for criminal violations of the Kingpin Act

The reports suggest that militant groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan in the garb of “Islamic ideology” engaged in criminal activities; from smuggling to kidnappings, narco trade to arm deals. They are fascist in their outlook, who wants to control the entire world financially—religion is just a ploy. Terrorism is their main tool to achieve this objective. Terrorism, like fascism is a self-destructive ideology. To fight terrorism, it is necessary to understand it. Wishful thinking about military might and invincible air-strike-power will not help to win the war against something that relates to human behaviour and lust for money and control. Use of ill-directed force against a few groups without eliminating the main causes leading to “terrorism”, would be merely a self-defeating exercise in futility.

Humanization of world societies is the only effective tool to eliminate terrorism. Use of force and denial of peoples’ legitimate rights on the contrary is bound to provoke more terrorist acts around the world. The violent incidents in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Iran, India, Afghanistan, Spain, England, Ireland, Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya and elsewhere are self-evident. The use of force or right of pre-emptive strikes is only a short-term solution. In the long-term, the governments of the world will have to sit down and chalk out a comprehensive strategy to ensure that miscreants are dealt with a strong hand without disturbing the peace and tranquility of individual societies and the world as a whole.

The most important question faced by humanity in the aftermath of 9/11 is whether we are afraid of freedom or want to preserve it for our future generations. All the terrorist attacks constitute a strike against freedom, but at the same time are a reaction against the callous attitude of those who claim to be self-appointed guardians of free world, human rights, faith and freedom, but in fact they exploit others for personal benefits. In a unipolar world, after the debacle of communist oligarchy, the responsibility of Western democracies has increased manifold to assure the rest of the world that absolute power in their hands does not mean high-handedness towards others. Mankind, after much struggle and sacrifices evolved the principles of economic liberalism, political democracy, religious freedom and individualism in personal life.

There are now certain forces, having vested interest to push mankind back towards dark ages when inalienable fundamental rights, were denied by the authoritarian rulers. There are debates inside the US and elsewhere, pinpointing the erosion of civil liberties on a massive scale in the name of defending the ‘Frontiers of Freedom’. Terrorism surfaced as a reaction towards growing “fascism” on the part of certain states, is a human problem, which needs to be understood. The analysis of character structure of a man is at the core of understanding the rising phenomena of fascism, fanaticism, fundamentalism and terrorism [which includes state terrorism].

The economic imbalances within a society and from global perspective, revival of religious movements (primarily a camouflage to manifest certain political aims) and imposition of will of the mighty on the weak have all given rise to what culminated in the shape of 9/11 in 2001 and events thereafter, which have created world-wide turmoil and unleashed a reign of fear. Behind this trail of terrorism is dirty business—drug trade, human trafficking, smuggling, kidnapping for ransom, arms trade and all other activities relating to organised crime. This aspect of terrorism has been well-documented by Gretchen Peters in her brilliantly-researched book, Seeds of Terrorism. Earlier, we exposed this horrific aspect of the ‘Jihadi bonanza’ in Pakistan: Drug-trap to Debt-trap.

Freedom of expression per se has been considered as sufficient fulfillment of the need to achieve a democratic society. The fallout of this fulfillment appears to be a misconceived notion on the part of individuals and groups that freedom of speech ipso facto gives them an authority or a license to impose their own ideas on others using money, power and physical force as means. They are not only intolerant towards others’ views, but also suffer from the misconception that their ideas are the only truth through which the world can be changed into a wonderful place. The terrorists, engaged in criminal activities, profess self-assumed ideological obligations as the only way of life and the so-called defenders of freedom are of the view that they hold the ultimate truth. Neither side is ready to open a dialogue. Both the sides have a non-comprising attitude when matter comes to money and control, camouflaged under some ideology.

Lack of responsibility on the part of the powerful to be fair towards the powerless has converted our world into a place full of misery, destruction and unhappiness. The frustration of the powerless is en-cashed by mafias—they use their anger and deprivation that vents in the form of ghastly acts of terrorism and destruction. If we want to change this situation drastically, a balance has to be struck between the powerful and the powerless. If a large segment of the world lives in a state of powerlessness, the powerful will always remain the target of hatred and attack. The powerful want to transform human beings into a machine where all cogs function as per the command of the master. Human beings are not machine cogs—they find ways to develop all sorts of malfunctioning depriving the master of his absolute control.

Highhandedness on the part of the powerful and tactics adopted (e.g. imposing economic sanctions etc.) cannot win the war against fundamentalism and terrorism. The oppressed and powerless have their peculiar ways of reacting, which by no means can be expected to be according to the norms of internationally agreed principles or legal norms. Their destructive tendencies (suicide bombings) are symptomatic of a sick world order. Our world is fast emerging as an authoritarian state reminiscent of fascist systems of the last century’s practices in Germany and Italy where the dominant role of authority in social and political structure rested with dictators. Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, remarkable book by great psychologist and thinker Erich Fromm, should be read by all the world leaders, especially heading the powerful States call them G-8, to understand the basis of ongoing conflicts giving rising to terrorism.

Revival of dictatorial state orders in the name of security needs is a step towards fascist world order. On global level, there are now open expressions of superior and inferior statuses while entering into relations with different states and blind admiration of the unipolar force. This is like pushing the entire world to Ground Zero. In devising military strategies to fight the forces of fanaticism and terrorism, the people at the helm of affairs should not overlook the human side of the whole problem. Freedom and democracy are inseparable. The right to express our thoughts clearly means something only if we are able to have thoughts of our own. If the media and state machinery is shaping the thoughts of everybody, then where is freedom of expression? If one does not have his own thoughts what does democracy mean? If the shape of the world is to be determined by a handful of people, having known economic interests [who want to redesign oil and political maps], then what is the need of freedom for the common man? In the wake of 9/11, there is skepticism and cynicism towards everything. The future of freedom and democracy is at stake.

James Petras, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the State University of New York, and Dr. Henry Veltmeyer in their book Globalization unmasked: Imperialism in the 21st Century have remarkable exposed the tactics of imperialists in the 21^st century. They argue that “globalization is propagated not to bring a better and more just world to the masses of the people but, as has always been the case with imperialism, to advance the interests of those who already enjoy power and privilege”. The anodyne rhetoric of ‘globalization,’ ‘markets,’ ‘democracy,’ and other pleasant and apparently neutral terms, conceals realities that are far better understood within the framework of imperialism and class conflict. The wide-ranging and penetrating inquiry by James Petras and Henry Veltmeyer yields insight into the core structural features of the evolving forms of domination and control, their severe human costs, and the popular resistance engendered. It is a contribution of unusual value for those who hope not only to understand the world, but also to change it, drastically, for the better.

Looked at superficially, people in various societies may appear to be functioning satisfactorily in economic and social life: yet it would be dangerous to overlook the deep-seated unhappiness behind that comforting veneer. The loss of substantial human lives in brutal attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, India or elsewhere and atrocities committed by drone bombings in various parts of the country, resulting in the death of innocent civilians are interlinked, painful action-reaction chain. Human despair in the wake of these gruesome happenings is not an isolated individual experience of a community, but a world-wide feeling on a political scale where dominant thought is losing freedom at individual level at the hands of forces of obscurantism and fanaticism, which lack sanity and respect for human life. Those who are encountering it with military might are equally mindless of the fact that suppression of individuals and governments cannot win any agenda against terrorism.

Erich Fromm in Fear of Freedom rightly concluded, “The victory over all kinds of authoritarian systems will be possible only if democracy does not retreat but takes the offensive and proceeds to realise what has been its aim in the minds of those who fought for freedom the last centuries. It will be triumph over the forces of nihilism only if it can imbue people with a faith that is the strongest the human mind in capable of, the faith in life and in truth, and in freedom as the active and spontaneous realization of the individual self.” The same is true for victory against terrorism. In order to secure triumph over the forces of destruction and disruption, the people will have to unite and convince fellow human beings of faith in life, freedom and truth as the active and spontaneous realization of individual self. This is possible only in a world that is free of authoritarianism, exploitation and injustice.

____________________________________________

The writers, authors of many papers and books on global terrorist networks and drug economy, are Visiting Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

The Indian Supreme Court, in its historic decision of 4 July 2011 in the case of Ram Jethmalani and Other V Union of India, set up a ‘Special Investigation Team’ to supervise the Government- led investigations into black money of Indians lying abroad. The decision, given in pursuance of a Writ Petition filed by Indian veteran leader Ram Jethmalani alleging inaction by the Government on unearthing of unaccounted money, has special significance for Pakistan. The apathy of rulers in Pakistan in probing looted money lying abroad is a great cause for concern as the government has successfully flouted the judgement of Supreme Court of Pakistan in the famous NRO case. The directions given by the Apex Court in Dr. Mubashar Haasn and others v Federation of Pakistan (2010 PLD Supreme Court 265) have yet not been complied with—even after a lapse of over 18 months. This is sheer mockery of rule of law. The common people, being highly disillusioned now, are openly saying that even Supreme Court of Pakistan is proving to be yet another ineffective institution.

The Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2010 PLD Supreme Court 265 held:

“Since the NRO, 2007 stands declared void ab initio, therefore, any actions taken or suffered under the said law are also non est in law and since the communications addressed by Malik Muhammad Qayyum to various foreign fora/authorities/courts withdrawing the requests, earlier made by the Government of Pakistan for mutual legal assistance; surrendering the status of civil party; abandoning the claims to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland, have also been declared by us to be unauthorized and illegal communications and .consequently of no legal effect, therefore, it is declared that the initial requests for mutual legal assistance; securing the status of civil party and the claims lodged to the allegedly laundered moneys lying in foreign countries including Switzerland are declared never to have been withdrawn. Therefore the Federal Government and other concerned authorities are ordered to take immediate steps to seek revival of the said requests, claims and status”.

The apex Court also observed in this judgement:

“A Monitoring Cell shall be established in the Supreme Court of Pakistan comprising of the Chief Justice of Pakistan or a Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by him to monitor the progress and the proceedings in respect of Court cases (explanation added in detailed reasons) in the above notices and other cases under the NAO, 1999. Likewise similar Monitoring Cells shall be set up in the High Courts of all the Provinces comprising the Chief Justice of the respective Province or Judges of the concerned High Courts to be nominated by them to monitor the progress and the proceedings in respect of Court cases (explanation added in detailed reasons) in which the accused persons had been acquitted or discharged under Section 2 of the NRO, 2007”.

By mid 2011, the people of Pakistan have lost hope in everything. Beneficiaries of NRO who Supreme Court ordered to be tried under the law are holding key positions and have made Pakistan a State captive in the hands of criminals. The above referred directions of the Supreme Court have lost their meanings as government is not inclined at all to act upon it.

In other countries, including India, corruption is an issue but at least there is will to fight it. The other day in India in an all-parties conference, it was resolved to table a consensus Bill. Two drafts of Lokpal Bill were discussed—one prepared by the government and other by activists led by Gandhian Anna Hazare. In Pakistan, on the contrary, political stalwarts (sic) are united to defeat the verdict of Supreme Court in NRO case. It is time that Dr. Mubashir Hassan should play Anna Hazare and start a nationwide campaign by establishing protest camps outside all Press Clubs of the country. The Supreme Court’s NRO verdict is no longer discussed even in the Media, reflecting apathy at its worst.

All responsible governments in recent years have shown commitment to retrieve untaxed money but in Pakistan, the government is opposing any such move even when binding judgement of the apex Court so requires and is enforceable under Article 189 of the Constitution. Pakistani tax authorities—knowing that there exists a treaty of avoidance of double taxation and exchange of tax information with all the governments where Pakistanis have parked untaxed money—have not yet taken any step to probe into hidden foreign accounts of Pakistanis. It is no secret that Pakistani tax evaders have been transferring huge amounts of money to many offshore havens.

Last month, Khalid Abdul Razzaq, Consul General for Malaysia in Karachi, disclosed in a media briefing that in the past eight years, Pakistanis transferred capital of Rs. 180 billion to Malaysia under the Malaysia My Second Home (MM2H) Programme. How many of them paid taxes on these funds in Pakistan, Federal Board of Revenue has no clue. According to an estimate, untaxed money of Pakistanis lying abroad is not less than US$ 200 billion—four times the external debt of Pakistan.

Till today, no efforts have been made by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), Federal Investigating Agency (FIA), Anti Narcotics Force (AFN) or Narcotics Control Board to conduct an in-depth study to quantify the magnitude of money unlawfully shifted abroad.

It is not possible to determine the precise amount of revenue loss and size of black money or shifting of money abroad. Revenue loss on account of smuggling of Afghan transit trade alone, as estimated by the World Bank, amounted to US$ 35 billion in 2009-2010. Apart from direct monetary costs of corruption, both Pakistani and international experts pinpoint many other costs, such as loss of government credibility, spread of injustice, distortions in resource allocations and loss of foreign and local investment.

When the presence of untaxed money is so apparent, why its criminal accumulation and generation are not revealed and the offenders punished, is a question which continues to baffle honest citizens. The ugliest face of black money emerges in the corridors of power, political as well as administrative. Taking this into account, the Indian Supreme Court in its judgement has very aptly observed:

“The strength of tax collection machinery can, and ought to be, expected to have a direct bearing on the revenues collected by the State. If  the machinery is weak, understaffed, ideologically motivated to look the other way, or the agents motivated by not so salubrious motives, the amount of revenue collected by the State would decline, stagnate, or may not generate the revenue for the State that is consonant with its responsibilities”.

The observations of Indian Supreme Court about weak tax machinery squarely apply to FBR. It is getting kudos from everywhere—including the media—for surpassing the target of Rs. 1588 billion by 2-3 billion rupees (originally it was Rs. 1680 billion). Collection by creating fictitious demands that will not stand the test of appeal and recovering the same through coercive measures, fudging of figures, blocking bona fide refunds and taking billions in advance were some of the tactics used by FBR. It is a national scandal and needs thorough probe. But who will do it?  Nobody is raising these issues in the so-called free media because FBR’s self-projection campaign is backed by giving advertisements worth millions of rupees to owners. FBR helps criminals in evading taxes and the State has extended all-out support for flight of capital. The poor are dying of hunger while the greedy politicians, corrupt officials and profit hungry businessmen are keeping and shifting billions abroad. This is a great tragedy, heinous crime and national stigma. We have no body like Anna Hazare to stand against it and start a national campaign—not just limited to TV Talk Shows or drawing room discussions.

Quoting Prof. Rotberg that “failed states offer unparalleled economic opportunity – but only for a privileged few”, the Indian Supreme Court observed, “Those around the ruler or ruling oligarchy grow richer while their less fortunate brethren starve. Immense profits are available from an awareness of regulatory advantages and currency speculation and arbitrage. But the privilege of making real money when everything else is deteriorating is confined to clients of the ruling elite…. The nation-state’s responsibility to maximize the well-being and prosperity of all its citizens is conspicuously absent, if it ever existed…. Corruption flourishes in many states, but in failed states it often does so on an unusually destructive scale. There is widespread petty or lubricating corruption as a matter of course, but escalating levels of venal corruption mark failed states.”

The Indian Supreme Court, taking strong exception of government’s lukewarm attitude in probing untaxed money lying abroad, has noted that the laxity of investigation indicates multiple problems of serious non-governance, and weaknesses in the system, including pressure from political quarters to hinder, or scuttle, the investigation, prosecution, and ultimately securing the return of such monies. Pakistan’s position with this reference is no different.

The attitude of Indian government (likewise the NRO case in Pakistan), says the Supreme Court, was evasive from the very beginning. It is highlighted in the judgement: “We must express our serious reservations about the responses of the Union of India. In the first instance, during the earlier phases of hearing before us, the attempts were clearly evasive, confused, or originating in the denial mode. It was only upon being repeatedly pressed by us did the Union of India begin to admit that indeed the investigation was proceeding very slowly”.

The Indian Supreme Court during the hearing proposed to the Union of India that it should reconstitute its High Level Committee (HLC) engaged in probing the matter by converting it into a Special Investigation Team, headed by two retired judges of the Supreme Court of India. The Union of India opposed the same, but provided no principle as to why that would be undesirable, especially in the light of many lapses and lacunae in its actions in these matters spread over the past four years. Taking cognizance of this, the Indian Supreme Court decided:

“We are of the firm opinion that in these matters fragmentation of government, and expertise and knowledge, across many departments, agencies and across various jurisdictions, both within the country, and across the globe, is a serious impediment to the conduct of a proper investigation. We hold that it is in fact necessary to create a body that coordinates, directs, and where necessary orders timely and urgent action by various institutions of the State. We also hold that the continued involvement of this Court in these matters, in a broad oversight capacity, is necessary for upholding the rule of law, and achievement of constitutional values. We note that in many instances, in the past, when issues referred to the Court have been very complex in nature, and yet required the intervention of the Court, Special Investigation Teams have been ordered and constituted in order to enable the Court, and the Union of India and/or other organs of the State, to fulfill their constitutional obligations”.

Finally, the Indian Supreme Court ordered that the High Level Committee constituted by the Union of India, comprising of (i) Secretary, Department of Revenue; (ii) Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India; (iii) Director (IB); (iv) Director, Enforcement; (v) Director, CBI; (vi) Chairman, CBDT; (vii) DG, Narcotics Control Bureau; (vii) DG, Revenue Intelligence; (ix) Director, Financial Intelligence Unit; and (x) JS (FT & TR-I), CBDT be forthwith appointed with immediate effect as a Special Investigation Team; (ii)That the Special Investigation Team, so constituted, also include Director, Research and Analysis Wing; (iii) That the above Special Investigation Team, so constituted, be headed by and include  the following former eminent judges of this Court: (a) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy as Chairman; and (b) Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah as Vice-Chairman; and that the Special Investigation Team function under their guidance and direction.

The Special Investigation Team is made responsible to Supreme Court and not the government and it shall be charged with the duty to keep the apex Court informed of all major developments by filing periodic status reports, and following any special orders that the Court may issue from time to time. It has been further directed that all organs, agencies, departments and agents of the State, whether at the level of the Union of India, or the State Government, including but not limited to all statutorily formed individual bodies, and other constitutional bodies, extend all the cooperation necessary for the Special Investigation Team.

While ordering Special Investigation Team, the Indian Supreme Court very rightly observed:

“The resources of this court are scarce, and it is over-burdened with the task of rendering justice in well over a lakh of cases every year. Nevertheless, this Court is bound to uphold the Constitution, and its own burdens, excessive as they already are, cannot become an excuse for it to not perform that task. In a country where most of its people are uneducated and illiterate, suffering from hunger and squalor, the retraction of the monitoring of these matters by this Court would be unconscionable”.

In Pakistan, our apex Court is faced with the same challenge. But it is not adopting the correct approach and methodology. Instead of involving the sitting judges in matters of public importance, except where a judicial commission is constituted, it should order special investigation teams with retired judges to supervise the proceedings and report to the Court rather than the government. Such move would not hamper routine work of the apex court where thousands of cases are pending and litigants are forced to wait many years for justice.

The issue of bringing looted wealth back has assumed renewed significance in many countries but in Pakistan there is still no public campaign to force the government to take necessary steps. The Indian Supreme Court has rightly pointed out that “the fact that there is some information and knowledge that such vast amounts may have been stashed away in foreign banks, implies that the State has the primordial responsibility, under the Constitution, to make every effort to trace the sources of such monies, punish the guilty where such monies have been generated and/or taken abroad through unlawful activities, and bring back the monies owed to the country. We do recognize that the degree of success, measured in terms of the amounts of monies brought back, is dependent on a number of factors, including aspects that relate to international political economy and relations, which may or may not be under our control. The fact remains that with respect to those factors that were within the powers of the Union of India, such as investigation of possible criminal nexus, threats to national security etc., were not even attempted. Fealty to the Constitution is not a matter of mere material success; but, and probably more importantly from the perspective of the moral authority of the State, a matter of integrity of effort on all the dimensions…..”

It is necessary to remember, as noted by Indian Supreme Court in its judgement, that the revelation of details of bank accounts of individuals, without establishment of prima facie grounds to accuse them of wrong doing, would be a violation of their rights to privacy. Details of

bank accounts can be used by those who want to harass, or otherwise cause damage, to individuals. The Indian judges have rightly observed: “We cannot remain blind to such possibilities, and indeed experience reveals that public dissemination of banking details, or availability to unauthorized persons, has led to abuse.

“The mere fact that a citizen has a bank account in a bank located in a particular jurisdiction cannot be a ground for revelation of details of his or her account that the State has acquired. Innocent citizens, including those actively working towards the betterment of the society and the nation, could fall prey to the machinations of those who might wish to damage the prospects of smooth functioning of society. Whether the State itself can access details of citizens bank accounts is a separate matter. However, the State cannot compel citizens to reveal, or itself reveal details of their bank accounts to the public at large, either to receive benefits from the State or to

facilitate investigations, and prosecutions of such individuals, unless the State itself has, through properly conducted investigations, within the four corners of constitutional permissibility, been able to establish prima facie grounds to accuse the individuals of wrong doing. It is only after the State has been able to arrive at a prima facie conclusion of wrongdoing, based on material evidence would the rights of others in the nation to be informed, enter the picture”, the Indian Supreme Court concluded.

In Pakistan, we have no leaders like Ram Jethmalani and Anna Hazare having a will and courage to launch nation-wide campaigns against corruption and approach Supreme Court for forcing the government to take stringent measure against this cancerous malady. Ram Jethmalani and Anna Hazare have done so because their own hands are clean. In Pakistan majority of leaders cannot justify their tax declaration vis-à-vis standard of living and assets amassed during the public life. One hopes that Imran Khan would take the cue and follow suit. He has been claiming as Mr. Clean in all TV Talk Shows. If he has paid his taxes honestly and all his money lying in Pakistan and abroad is from declared sources, he must come forward and file a petition in Supreme Court. Any citizen of Pakistan can file this petition but coming from a politician, as the case in India, would certainly have different dimensions and greater affect. It will be a starting point for accountability of the corrupt, tax evaders and plunderers of national wealth. If we can get one clean politician who has courage to follow in the footsteps of Ram Jethmalani and Anna Hazare, the fate of nation can change.

__________________________________________________________________________

The writers, tax consultants and authors of many books on Pakistani tax laws, are Adjunct Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)

Open government is the governing doctrine which holds that citizens have the right to access the documents and proceedings of the government to allow for effective public supervision (see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government]. In its broadest construction it opposes reason of state and racist considerations, which have tended to legitimize extensive state secrecy. The origins of open government arguments can be dated to the time of the European Enlightenment: to debates about the proper construction of nascent democratic society of that era. Among recent developments is the theory of open source governance, which advocates the application of the philosophies of the free software movement to democratic principles to enable interested citizens in getting more directly involved in the legislative process.

Way back in 1993, the UK government issued a White Paper declaring that it was the government’s “commitment to make government in the United Kingdom more open and accountable.” Public interest is involved in both disclosure and confidentiality of information which needs to be subtly balanced by devising suitable policies and legislation. Countries like Sweden had introduced this right in the eighteenth century while in recent years, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA have joined the rank. Closer to home, Aruna Roy a prominent founder and member of the movement Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (MKSS) actively campaigned for right to information in India. The movement has been credited for getting Right to Information (RTI) laws passed in several States, including the Rajasthan Right to Information Act passed in the year 2000. The RTI movement and campaign also played a crucial role in the passage of strong national legislation for the RTI in the year 2005.

In an interview, Aruna Roy said, “The pity is that there is no accountability in the present system of governance. All human rights depend on the basic right to know, to demand accountability. In India, the feudal social fabric has exploited the formal democratic system to its advantage because the literate are too busy building careers and empires to bother about social inadequacies. That’s why RTI has a widespread appeal for everyone. Every citizen of the state has a fundamental right to say: “You are spending my money. Render me the accounts.” But most people are unaware of this power and suffer as a result their inaction and ignorance.” These observations hold true for the prevailing situation in Pakistan as well. Explaining further she also said,

“We need to take legislation to the people and policy can’t be framed without the consent of the people. In a democracy no policy can be formed without a public debate. Like the first native American President Evo Morales said: ‘There is the Left, there is the Right and then there are the people.”

Without taking the people into confidence and without their consent no democratic government can claim to establish successful governance. In other words, whatever the government does should be made public so that the electorate can scrutinize acts of their representatives holding them both responsible and accountable.

The starting point of across the board accountability in Pakistan should be making public, assets, liabilities and taxes of politicians, high-ranking civil and military officials and judges. The civil society and media should come forward to force the parliament to abolish all laws relating to secrecy and/or immunity and enact a comprehensive legislation for compulsory disclosure of assets, liabilities and taxes paid by generals, high ranking government officials, judges and politicians—this information cannot be obtained under the existing law that is Freedom of Information Ordinance 2002.

The issue of asset disclosure by judges in India came in the limelight when a Right to Information Application (RTI) was filed with the Supreme Court by Mr. Subhash Agarwal in order to know if judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court were complying with the 1997 “Code of Conduct” adopted at the Chief Justices Conference requiring judges to disclose their assets in confidence to their Chief Justices. The public information officer of the Supreme Court, endorsed by the Chief Justice, claimed “no such information exists in the Supreme Court registry”.

Later on, an appeal was submitted before the Central Information Commission (CIC) arguing that the Supreme Court was making a distinction between information with the Chief Justice’s office and that of the Supreme Court. The CIC, while rejecting this distinction, directed the public information officer of the Supreme Court to secure this information from the Chief Justice’s office and hand over the same to Subhash Agarwal, the RTI applicant.

The Supreme Court challenged the order of CIC filing a writ petition in the Delhi High Court. The CIC merely directed release of the information about whether judges were disclosing their assets to the Chief Justice, but in the writ petition, the Supreme Court apprehended that the exercise might lead to paving the way for people to know about asset disclosures under the Right to Information Act [“the Act]. It was claimed that asset disclosures by judges was exempted under the Act as data lay with the Chief Justice under a “fiduciary relationship”. The second contention was that being “personal information”, it had no relationship with public domain. Chief Justice feared that public access of such declarations would amount to “an unwarranted invasion of the privacy” of his brother judges. Finally, it was argued that Chief Justice was not a “Public Authority”, amenable to the Act.

The issue came in further limelight when the government introduced a bill in Parliament providing for asset disclosure of judges, but with a protection clause that the same would not be accessible to the people and that judges would not be made liable for any action on the basis of their disclosure. This led to a commotion in parliament—the MPs rising above party lines, vehemently and collectively condemned this clause, forcing the government to pull out the bill.

In the wake of the debate in Parliament and public campaign, a number of High Court judges made their assets public, dissociating themselves from the Chief Justice of India’s stand that asset disclosure would lead to harassment of judges at the hands of disgruntled litigants. Eminent former judges and leading jurists joined the civil society—they openly   demanded public declaration of assets by judges. The entire civil society and media, unanimously and vocally, opposed the stance of Chief Justice. Succumbing to opposition—both from inside and outside—the Chief Justice ultimately yielded and announced that the asset declarations of the judges would be placed at official website, www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in. Soon thereafter, twenty-one judges of the Supreme Court, including Chief Justice of India K.G. Balakrishnan, declared their assets, giving details of movable and immovable properties owned by them and their spouses.

We should also initiate public debate about asset disclosure of judges. Before judges hold politicians and others accountable, they must convince the masses that their own hands are clean. The honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan, who visited India this year for Commonwealth Conference, must be aware of recent developments in India in this direction. One hopes, he would soon order public disclosure of assets by all honourable judges and ensure their placement at the official website of apex court. The Supreme Court Bar Association, under the dynamic leadership of Asma Jahangir, should raise this issue as accountability of lawyers and judges is as essential as of any other section of the society.

According to Indian commentators, the disclosures made so far are disappointing because they lack many important details. They give an idea of the different saving habits of different judges. Some of them have invested in real estate, others in shares and yet others in the government’s savings schemes. But the information could have been useful only when the market value of the assets was made known and details like the time of acquisition of property were also given.

In Pakistan we have laws (sic) for declaration of assets and liabilities by government servants and public office holders, but the common man knows nothing about them. In these declarations the present value of the property and how they were acquired are seldom revealed. These, along with tax declarations, should be made public. In India there was sharp criticism over asset disclosures of the judges and their spouses. It was demanded that information about the assets of other close relatives, like sons and daughters, was also important in the Indian context. The declarations, made under a Supreme Court resolution of May, 1997, were only in partial conformity with the requirements laid down. That declaration, in fact, underlined the need for a law that makes disclosure mandatory and open to the public, lays down in detail assets to be declared, how the disclosure is to be made and who should come under its purview. The civil society and media demanded that it should also specify the consequences of wrong declarations.

The campaign for judicial accountability and reform in India in recent years has assumed great public importance. The issue is no longer confined to public disclosure of assets of judges. The public and media have made it clear that the RTI legislation is the key to open government, transparency and accountability. Such legislation, if implemented in letter and spirit, can pave the way for true democracy. We require public campaign for such a law if all the four pillars of State—Legislation, Judiciary, Executive and Media—have to be made accountable to the public. Right to information, access to public record and free availability of what is owned by privileged classes must be assured—this alone can help establishing an open government, free of corruption and accountable to voters responsible for creating it.

—————————————–

The writers, tax lawyers and writers of many books are Adjunct Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

If one is thrown into circumstances that force him to make a choice between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea or between evil and lesser evil, or between Scylla and Charybdis, or between a rock and a hard place, what would it be? Indeed, the one that is less painful would be the most desirable choice. Today in Pakistan, our elected representatives are displaying their worst manners and uncivilized behaviour by hurling accusations and allegations on each other. Instead of joining hands in a bid to eradicate this country from all forms of malaise, they are merely grinding their own axe to keep themselves politically alive and maintain their hold over the government. Whether it is by joining as political allies, threatening to quit alliances, putting up opposition for the sake of opposition, exerting street pressure or through verbal attacks where all other things fail; they are doing everything except performing their role of helmsmen and steering this country’s ship clear of the murky waters of crises.

We should not be washing our dirty linen in the public and that goes for other people’s filth as well. Mud-slinging, character assassinations, defamation campaigns may cause a slight dent in the personalities of some leaders but never enough to wipe them out of existence as long as their followers are committed. In fact, at times, these prove to enhance rather than tarnish their images which may actually be detrimental as their true worth in the eyes of the voters may be overshadowed, which could be established by their acts. Perhaps because of this bleak scenario, our political horizons stay polluted with corrupt, inefficient and selfish leaders whose heads keep bobbing up and down the stormy waves of intermittent periods of civil-military rules in Pakistan. The choice of this nation remains constant between voting in and voting out the very same political players who are judged by their rivals’ verbal attacks. Thus the one with whom the public at large sympathises more in terms of allegations levelled against them, wins the day. Under these circumstances, how can the democratic system of filtering out hopeless politicians work successfully? On top of that, we find ourselves at a loss for true and sincere leadership!

In the recent past spokespersons of two leading political parties enlightened the public about the scandalous stories of what goes on behind the closed doors of their rival’s homes. In their enthusiasm to portray the other as evil personified, no stone remained unturned to malign the other to the extent that very minute personal details were discussed as if they were ‘the’ most important issues for the nation. Interestingly, the persons in question happen to be highly educated, well-groomed and seasoned members of the political elite. Such behaviour depicts nothing but the shallowness of those who are capable of mouthing only foul language. Under such circumstances the best policy should be to ignore with contempt instead of countering allegations which only adds fuel to the fire of hate and makes a laughing stock of the persons whose character is intended to be defended.

The main question is when will we learn to display civilized behaviour in public? After all, in most of the democratic countries of the world, public debate on national issues is a common phenomenon but speakers refrain from using offensive language especially when discussing persons. Jokes are cracked but only to lend some humour to an otherwise serious matter. Lack of education and good manners are both, conspicuous by their absence on our political horizon hence during any public discourse there is an obvious display of crudity and extremely lowly behaviour from persons on whom people look up to for guidance and leadership. Besides, the public has become weary of these verbal battles. They are looking for more concrete actions and solutions to their ever-growing problems rather than sit back and feel aghast at these never ending tiffs.

Another marvellous outcome of these mud-slinging campaigns is that no government, federal or provincial, is managing its work efficiently. Law and order situation is totally out of control, whether it is the country’s capital, Khadim-i-Ala’s territory, MQM’s stronghold, ANP’s KPK or the largest province of Pakistan. Uneasiness prevails supreme as no one feels secure in his home or on the streets. As if the entire country is engulfed with ash clouds of despair, true happiness seems to have vanished into thin air. All around there appears a general atmosphere of dejection, intolerance, violence, hatred, what to talk of poverty, hunger, unemployment and disease.

Every election brings a renewed hope that the next government would rid the country of old malaise but every new government brings in its wake, fresh sets of problems, the causes of which allegedly emanate from the earlier rulers. This is a vicious circle that keeps expanding with each incoming government. The tragedy of Pakistan is non-resisted, unchecked and unfettered perpetuation of unholy alliance between the establishment (military complex and their civil cronies) and political elite. This anti-people alliance deprives the people of their fundamental rights and political empowerment. It dispossesses them of great wealth of natural resources and equitable and just division of economic benefits. Unless this unholy alliance is busted, there is no hope of democratically viable, happy and prosperous Pakistan that ensures welfare of all and not undue enrichment of a few.

—————————————–

The writers, tax lawyers and writers of many books are Adjunct Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

Unscrupulous Pakistani individuals and companies can no longer hide their untaxed Swiss bank accounts—succumbing to international pressure Switzerland has recently ended its 300 years obstinate banking secrecy. Like Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Andorra, Switzerland has now agreed to share information regarding bank accounts on request from foreign governments. Pakistani tax authorities—knowing fully well that there exists a treaty of avoidance of double taxation and exchange of tax information with the Swiss government—have not yet taken any step to probe into hidden Swiss accounts of Pakistanis.

The Swiss House of Representatives following the Senate on June 9, 2010 accepted the demands of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) that it would follow Article 26 of the OECD’s Model Tax Convention, vide which countries agree to share relevant data in cases of suspected tax fraud. In practical terms, Switzerland from now on cannot restrict its administrative assistance to cases of presumed tax fraud (which involves the falsification of documents). It is legally bound to provide information where tax evasion is suspected – in other words, where money not declared to national tax authorities has been deposited in a Swiss bank.

It is well-established that Pakistani tax evaders/avoiders have been transferring huge amounts of money to Swiss banks—generated through illegal activities by some avaricious politicians, corrupt bureaucrats, Jihadi-terrorist-drug-for-arms networks and greedy businessmen. Pakistan is facing a grim challenge of measuring and countering enormous revenue leakages and black money—its size estimated to be three time the regular economy. Till today, no effort appears to have been made by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), Federal Investigating Agency (FIA), Anti Narcotics Force (AFN) or Narcotics Control Board to conduct an in-depth study to quantify the magnitude of black money and amounts shifted to Swiss banks. According to an estimate, it is not less than 200 billion dollars—four times the external debt of Pakistan.

The process of dent in Swiss banking secrecy started when US Department of Justice (DOJ) took the Swiss bank UBS to court to obtain the names of 52,000 clients of the bank: US citizens who, the US government claimed, did not declare to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) all details of their financial information. NAB and/or FBR have learnt no lesson from this move by the US authorities.

“At a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs, their homes and their health care, it is appalling that more than 50,000 of the wealthiest among us have actively sought to evade their civic and legal duty to pay taxes,” said John DiCicco, acting Assistant Attorney general for the DOJ’s tax division. In the wake of US success, the European Union also announced its intention to seek a similar agreement with Swiss banks, to release the names of clients who are citizens of EU countries.

According to an estimate, the money lying in Swiss banks of Pakistanis is to the tune of US $ 200 billion which appears plausible as parallel economy is growing at an alarming rate of 20% per annum. Every fifth rupee transacted in Pakistan is black. The volume of black money generated in the year 2008-09 alone was not less than US$ 40 billion. This is still not final. It does not account for kickbacks in foreign trade, smuggling and foreign exchange racketeering, apart from trade in narcotics and other criminal activities by terrorist Jihadi outfits. According to various studies, the underground money generated through smuggling in goods and narcotics trade alone is between US $ 50-70 billion.

Pakistani policymakers must realize that a sound development strategy seeks to reduce the size of the informal economy and bring into the open resources that lie in the form of black money. Apart from such mechanisms as foreign exchange and tax amnesties; and exercises such as demonetizations, taxation is used as a tool to tap the resources inherent in these areas. According to a conservative estimate, tax evaders in Pakistan annually deprive the country of revenue of over US $ 10 billion—but the government, instead of putting them behind bars, encourages their unlawful activities. Our politicians, policymakers and tax managers during the last many years have miserably failed to tap untaxed money despite borrowing a whopping US$ 100 million for Tax Administration Reforms Programme (TARP)—every year billions of rupees are transferred from Pakistan to Zurich, Dubai, Johannesburg  and elsewhere.

A survey carried out by a reputed Lahore based academic institution a few years back, as a part of tax reformation drive, concluded that out of every Rs. 100 taxable amount, the highest amount of Rs. 38, of course goes to the taxpayer, a typical Pakistani businessman. The taxman, an officer in income tax department, gets Rs. 16 for his services to the taxpayer in helping him to conceal his real income. The middleman who is a tax practitioner, advisor or a lawyer gets Rs. 10. If these estimates are taken as true, then the annual national tax loss for fiscal year 2009-2010 was not less than Rs. 500 billion—half of which is transferred to Swiss banks.

It is not possible to determine the precise amount of revenue loss and size of black money or shifting of money abroad. Revenue loss on account of smuggling of Afghan transit trade alone, as estimated by the World Bank, amounted to US $ 35 billion in 2008-2009. Apart from direct monetary costs of corruption, both Pakistani and international literature pin point many other costs, such as loss of government credibility, spread of injustice, distortions in resource allocations and loss of foreign and local investment.

When the presence of black money is so apparent, its criminal accumulation and generation are not revealed and the offenders punished, is a question which continues to baffle honest citizens. They ask, whether it is on account of lack of political will, or rampant corruption, or collusion of tax dodgers and corrupt tax administrators, or the weak political system, or the ineffectiveness together with defectiveness of laws, or the pervasive stubborn indifference of the citizens towards their duties?

The ugliest face of black money emerges in the corridors of power, political as well as administrative. Pakistan is passing through the worst financial crisis of its history, i.e., the crisis of resources manifested in the huge budgetary deficits. Revenue has to be collected and all measures both stringent and persuasive have to be taken in that direction. The Government therefore needs to introduce asset-seizure legislation to confiscate the mammoth reservoir of the untaxed black money—huge chunk of which is lying in the Swiss banks. It is now time to seek information from Swiss government as has been done by USA, EU countries and many other countries in Asia and Africa. In case swift action is not taken to seize money and property arising out of corruption, tax evasion, narco-arms-trade and other unlawful activities, the day is not far when our tolerance towards ill-gotten wealth leads to self-annihilation.

____________________________________

The writers, tax consultants and authors of many books on Pakistani tax laws, are visiting Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

Huzaima Bukhari & Dr. Ikramul Haq

Faiz Ahmad Faiz, great poet, human rights activist, trade unionist, journalist, thinker and revolutionary, was part of a 20th-century pantheon that includes the likes of Pablo Neruda, Nazim Hikmet and Mahmoud Darwish. All of them worked actively under the banner of Afro-Asian Writers’ Association. Faiz was editor of its prestigious magazine, Lotus. Very few people know that Faiz, Nazim, Mahmoud and Neruda were very close ideologically and their works have astounding resemblances. Their message was universal—quest for peace and justice for humanity at large.

Pablo Neruda (1904-1973) and Faiz Ahmad Faiz (1910-1984)—contemporary poets, friends and outstanding humanists—have left lasting impression on the world of literature. Their works won global recognition—Neruda was honoured with Nobel Prize for literature in 1971 and Faiz won Lenin Peace Prize in 1962. Both Neruda and Faiz, like many others, notably Nazim Hikmet and Mahmoud Darwish, were essentially humanists, anti-colonialists and anti-imperialists. Their great struggle and works were interwoven—these were inseparable. Their work complimented their struggle and vice versa.

Faiz Ahmed Faiz was born in Sialkot in the Punjab, then a part of India under British rule. He hailed from a well-to-do landowner’s family. Faiz’s father was a prominent lawyer, who was interested in literature, and whose friends included several prominent literary figures, including Muhammad Iqbal (1873-1938), national poet of Pakistan. Faiz received his education at mission schools in Sialkot in the English language, but he also learned Urdu, Persian, and Arabic. He studied English and Arabic literatures at Government College, Lahore, receiving in 1932 his M.A. in English, and in Arabic from Oriental College, Lahore. Besides formal studies, Faiz actively participated in the literary circles, which held meetings at homes of established writers. After graduating, he worked as a teacher from the mid-1930s in Amritsar and Lahore.

In the 1930s, Faiz joined the famous leftist progressive movement under the leadership of Sajjad Zaheer (1905-1973. During World War II, Faiz served in the Indian army in Delhi, and in 1944, he was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. With the division of the subcontinent in 1947, Faiz resigned from the army and moved to Pakistan with his family. Alys Faiz (died in 2003), whom he had married in 1941, later published a book of memoirs, Over My Shoulder (1993). Faiz became editor of the English daily, the Pakistan Times. He also worked as managing editor of the Urdu daily Imroz, and was actively involved in organizing trade unions.

In 1951 Faiz and a number of army officers were implicated in the so-called Rawalpindi Conspiracy case and arrested under Safety Act. The government authorities alleged that Faiz and others were planning a coup d’état. He spent four years in prison under a sentence of death and was released in 1955. Faiz became the secretary of the National Council of the Arts, and in 1962 he was awarded the Lenin Peace Prize by the Soviet Union. After the military takeover of General Ziaul Haq on July 5, 1977, Faiz was once again under trouble and was forced to exile. After a period of exile in war-torn Lebanon from 1979 to 1982, Faiz returned to Pakistan and died in Lahore on November 20, 1984.

Faiz’s first collections of poetry, Naqsh-e faryadi (1943), Dast-e saba (1952), and Zindan Namah (1956), include his experience of imprisonment. Faiz describes his life behind the walls, in confinement, finding consolation in the thought that “though tyrants may command that lamps be smashed / in rooms where lovers are destined to meet / they cannot snuff out the moon…”

Faiz has written extensively. His contribution in poetry and prose is enormous. In Culture and Identity: Selected English Writings of Faiz, Sheema Majeed and Mohammad Reza Kazimi have presented valuable work of Faiz. Faiz’s poetry is musical, lyrical and inspiring. It stems from the main theme of making his homeland and the world at large a better place for the downtrodden—‘the wretched of the earth’, a phrase masterly coined by Franz Fanon. The remarkable thing about Faiz is that in spite of his overwhelming revolutionary ideas, he never allowed ideological epiphany to burden his poetry with shoddy rhetoric. He was master of art and craft—a quality lacked by many revolutionary poets of his time. Legacy of Faiz is universal and everlasting—for nearly six decades he inimitably articulated the suffering of his people, the agony of dispossession and exile.

Faiz participated in the long-drawn struggle for freedom—both in colonial and post-independence eras—and his poetry is epitome of message of hope and commitment for creating a true democratic polity in which the forces of exploitation have no role to play. He had a dream—to see human beings living in peace and tranquility. He is truly is a messenger of peace, equality and justice. His commitment to this cause was infallible. His poetry reflects the aspirations of masses. From literary point of view, he was poet par excellence, a revolutionary who never indulged in slogan-mongering. His work has both classical authenticity and modern sensibility. Faiz is considered even by his critics, great master of poetic expression and authentic builder of new tradition of resistance in literature.

_______________________________________________________________

Pablo Neruda and Faiz Ahmad Faiz: rare picture of two great luminaries of literature

_________________________________________________________________________

In the post-independence period and during the Cold War era, Faiz was still struggling as oligarchy of the rich and mighty, created by colonial masters, captured power denying people their due rights—the situation prevails even today. He used poetry as a means of resistance against colonial and post-colonial legacy of control, exploitation and denial of rights to the masses. He remained active player in the entire struggle and not mere idealist poet, sitting on the other side of the fence, criticizing others. This makes him distinguishable from many contemporary poets and writers, who believed in “art for the sake of art” and sided with the rulers of the day, either by their silence or inactions. This is why the great thinker of our time, Professor Edward W. Said always admired Faiz for his courage and resilience.

—————————————————-

The writers (huzaima@huzaimaikram.com and ikram@huzaimaikram.com) are visiting Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences).

Pakistan these days is in the grip of a controversial debate about waiver from criminal proceedings available to the President of Pakistan under Article 248(2) of the 1973 Constitution and sovereign immunity in other countries under international law. The background of this heated debate is judgement of the apex court asking the federal government to undo unlawful withdrawal of its claim of laundered money in Switzerland, generated through kickbacks received from SGS and Cotecna, two Swiss companies hired for pre-shipment clearance in Pakistan. According to judgement delivered by Swiss Judge Daniel Devaud in 2003 this money belonged to the people of Pakistan. After establishing money laundering offences under Switzerland’s penal code, he ordered suspended prison terms for the defendants and asked them to pay restitution. In 2008, the Pakistani government withdrew from the case and it was dismissed in August 2008 as there was no longer a claimant of laundered money. Now, the Supreme Court has asked the government to revive the matter in Switzerland for claim of money looted from the Pakistani taxpayers and the masses.

In the concluding part of his judgement, the Swiss Magistrate did mention that by judgment of 15 April 1999, the High Court of Lahore awarded the defendants 5 years’ of imprisonment and US$ 8.6 million of fines. But on 6 April 2001, the said judgment was annulled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan and the case sent back to the first judges for a new decision. It is strange that from 2001 till the time of issuance of NRO—now declared ultra vires of Constitution—no decision was taken by the court despite clear instructions from the apex court. The honourable apex court in its judgement of 16 December 2009 did not touch the issue of delays by the trial courts in deciding the matters. The Swiss court, after considering the law, concluded as follows:

• “That by taking useful means to enrich herself or enrich her husband by way of a contract concluded for the State of which she assumed the supreme direction, Prime Minister of Pakistan was guilty, at least, of acts relating to the unfair management of the public interests which she had the mission of defending;
• That nothing effectively permits the conclusion that SGS and Cotecna, for themselves, Hans Fischer and Robert MASSEY, had consented to a sacrifice of more than US$ 5 million for the sole purpose of making a donation, without compensation, to the couple Bhutto-Zardari. These payments were without a doubt made in order to obtain the desired contract, in such a manner that SGS and Cotecna therein found their benefit. If Benazir Bhutto had acted fairly, it would not be herself or her husband, but rather the State of Pakistan, which should have benefited, by example in the form of a discount on amounts billed by SGS and Cotecna, from the financial sacrifice that SGS and Cotecna were prepared to make;
• That precautions taken by Mr. Asif Ali Zardari in concert with Mr. Jens Schlegelmilch in order to keep the concluded agreement secret clearly demonstrate that he was aware of its illicit character; and
• That in summary, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto thus knew that she was acting in a criminally reprehensible manner by abusing her role in order to obtain for herself or her husband, considerable sums in the sole private interest of her family at the cost of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan”.

The above findings of the Swiss Court and concurrent findings of trial court in Pakistan and High Court, Lahore, prove that huge money belonging to Pakistan was plundered and laundered. In this background, the defenders of Asif Ali Zardari are oblivious of established position in international law that sovereign immunity is not available in cases where financial crimes are committed through contracts signed by the States or their agencies. The experts speaking on behalf of Zardari are not citing the specific law regarding sovereign immunity under which the President of Pakistan cannot be sued in Switzerland or any other country vis-à-vis charges of alleged financial corruption. They are not aware of the fact that international law prohibits sovereign immunity with regard to commercial activities of foreign States or their agencies or with regard to property taken by a foreign sovereign in violation of international law. In recent times, the customary international law has continued to move towards a restrictive doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Until the twentieth century, mutual respect for the independence, legal equality, and dignity of all nations was thought to entitle each nation to a broad immunity from the judicial process of other states. This immunity was extended to heads of state, in both their personal and official capacities, and to foreign property. With the emergence of socialist and Communist countries after World War I, the traditional rules of sovereignty placed the private companies of free enterprise nations at a competitive disadvantage compared to state-owned companies from socialist and Communist countries, which would plead immunity from lawsuits. European and U.S. businesses that engaged in transactions with such companies began to insist that all contracts waive the sovereign immunity of the state companies. This situation led courts to reconsider the broad immunity and adopt instead, a doctrine of restrictive immunity that excluded commercial activity and property.

Western European countries began waiving immunity for state commercial enterprises through bilateral or multilateral treaties. In 1952 the U.S. Department of State decided that, in considering future requests for immunity, it would follow the shift from absolute immunity to restrictive immunity. In 1976 Congress passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1601 et seq.) to provide foreign nations with immunity from the jurisdiction of U.S. federal and state courts in certain circumstances. This act, which strives to conform to international law, prohibits sovereign immunity with regard to commercial activities of foreign states or their agencies or with regard to property taken by a foreign sovereign in violation of international law. Customary international law has continued to move towards a restrictive doctrine.

There is no automatic Crown immunity in Australia. Article 88 of the Constitution of Belgium states: The King’s person is inviolable; his ministers are accountable. Article 13 of the Constitution of Denmark states: The King shall not be answerable for his actions; his person shall be sacrosanct. The Ministers shall be responsible for the conduct of the government; their responsibility shall be determined by Statute. In Malaysia, an amendment to the constitution in 1993 made it possible to bring proceedings against the king or any ruler of a component state in the Special Court. Prior to 1993, rulers, in their personal capacity, were immune from any proceedings brought against them. Applying this principle, the legitimate demand from Asif Ali Zardari is to surrender ill-gotten wealth from contracts signed by the Government of Pakistan with the Swiss company, something which has nothing to do with Article 248(2) of the Pakistan Constitution. Nobody is interested in criminal prosecution of the President of Pakistan. The prime interest of the nation is to get its unlawfully transferred money back in the Treasury.

The UK, from where we inherited our legal system, also drastically altered its position on sovereign immunity through the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 that made the government generally liable, with limited exceptions, in tort and contract. Even before, it was possible to claim against the Crown with the Attorney-General’s fiat (i.e., permission). This was called a petition of right. Alternatively, Crown servants could be sued in place of the Crown (and the Crown as a matter of course paid). Further, mandamus and prohibition were always available against ministers because they were derived from the prerogative. However, even after the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, lawsuits against the Sovereign in his or her personal, private capacity are still inadmissible in British law.

The framers of 1973 Constitution, unfortunately, followed the model of constitutional monarchies by inserting Article 248. In such countries the sovereign is the historical origin of the authority which creates the courts. Thus the courts had no power to compel the sovereign to be bound by the courts, as they were created by the sovereign for the protection of his or her subjects. This concept is against the teachings of the holy Quran that unequivocally commands that sovereignty belongs to Allah Almighty and no person—King or elected-person—is above law. The Quranic commands are binding on all. The holy Quran says “You who believe uphold justice and bear witness, even if it goes against yourselves, your parents, or your close relatives” (4:135). How hypocritical the rulers/law-makers of this Land of the Pure are: preamble of 1973 Constitution starts with the words that “sovereignty over the entire universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone”, but they claim immunity for President/Governors from criminal proceedings in utter violation of Qur’anic injunctions.

Tragically, we are still following the concept of ‘sovereign’ King embodied in constitutional monarchies. This is shameful for a State that claims to be an Islamic Republic. History confirms that Khulafa-e-Rashideen (rightly-guided rulers) appeared in person in courts to defend charges levied against them by the citizens—Muslims or non-Muslims. The first thing the parliament should do is to scrap Article 248 of the Constitution. All the politicians, judges, generals should be answerable before the people and their accountability should be the starting point of democratization of society. The honourable apex court as a starting point must ask all the judges to place their declaration of assets and liabilities on its website as has been done in India recently. Once it is done, all the politicians should be asked to disclose and explain the sources of their assets and incomes—there should be no immunity for anyone, but targeting President alone is equally unjustifiable.

As regards the true import and scope of Article 248, it gives protection to acts done in good faith exercising the high State offices. It cannot be construed to give blanket immunity to unlawful acts committed while holding the office. If this argument is accepted then after subverting the Constitution, an office-holder mentioned in Article 248 can escape punishment under Article 6. Certainly in such a case he cannot rely on this ouster provision. The ouster provisions of the Constitution—like Article 248—cannot be interpreted to condone any action that is violative of the law of the land. Money laundering is crime under the international convention of the United Nations—Pakistan is signatory to this convention. No Head of State can claim immunity under any international law/convention if guilty of money laundering.

————————————————————————–

The writers, lawyers and authors of many books, are Adjunct Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

“Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear.”—General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, replied when CNN asked about the vulnerability of Iran’s nuclear installations.

The American leaders and generals—engaged in creating war hysteria at the advent of 2010—are ardent followers of Machiavelli’s famous advice in The Prince, “a wise ruler invents enemies and then slays them in order to control his own subjects”? The United States and its allies desiring continuation of their military presence in many Muslim countries—especially Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain—are on continuous spree of invented “enemies” in the aftermath of 9/11. Their favourite targets these days are Pakistan, Iran and Yemen. The geo-political interests of neo-imperialists are to control the world resources, muzzle the hostile governments, and eradicate radical elements. Through military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, they want to create apparition for powerful re-emerging Russia, oil-rich Iran, democratic India and socialist China. The inventing and slaying of “enemies” [Jihadist] is being done with a sinister purpose—keeping alive ‘Islamic threat’ and forbidding the world to come out of the contrived orbit of ‘war on terror’. 

The long series of counterproductive drone attacks, indiscriminate bombings, arrests, torture, kidnappings and disappearances (sanitised as ‘Extraordinary Rendition’) carried out by US forces while the CIA covertly funded, armed and supported “Islamists”, according to Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan, a Visiting Research Scholar at the Jawaharlal Nehru University School of International Studies, are intended not to eliminate the ‘Islamic threat’ but to contain it within manageable limits and to spawn the next generation of ‘terrorists’. Inventing new enemies and eliminating the older ones—as part of the New Great Game—is understandable. Elimination of “Islamic threat” through political moves—tried initially by Musharraf and later on by Kayani—irked the forces imposing New World Order. Any such move could, certainly, diminish “Washington’s leverage to intervene in Pakistan to distance Islamabad from Beijing and exploit energy resources abundantly found in Balochistan and, in the long run, perhaps derail US administration’s well-laid plans to bring Afghanistan to heel and to dominate Central Asia and its oil-rich Caspian Sea Basin”, observed  Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan.

The Indian scholar in his paper, The Great Game Continues, has blamed Pakistani intelligentsia (sic) of being “agonisingly unaware of the labyrinthine geo-politics and economic imperatives underlying the New Cold War. He says, “They are blissfully going along with the collaborationist leaders who are bartering away the country’s future for the proverbial pieces of silver”. This statement needs attention and analysis—most of speakers and anchors at talk shows of our “bright” and “independent” electronic media prove the point raised by Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan.

The deadly trap for Pakistan started in 2006 with cacophony of the United States CIA and British intelligence services engineering panic about the security of Pakistan’s nuclear assets. It was part of a cunning strategy of creating a huge threat of “Islamist militants”—using the prefix of “Islamist” with a “militant” shows the real motive. It was, in fact, duplication of hysteria they created over non-existent weapons of mass destruction that Saddam allegedly possessed! A carefully worded article, co-authored by former State Department officials Richard L. Armitage and Kara L. Bue, after acknowledging (sic) Pervez Musharraf’s many achievements (sic), noted: “much remains to be accomplished, particularly in terms of democratization. Pakistan must…eliminate the home-grown jihadists…And…it must prove itself a reliable partner on technology transfer and nuclear non-proliferation”. The typical US-style denouement was: ‘We believe General Musharraf…deserves our attention and support, no matter how frustrated we become at the pace of political change and the failure to eliminate Taliban fighters on the Afghan border.’ The same year, a Carnegie Endowment report faulted western governments that ‘contribute to regional instability by allowing Pakistan to trade democratisation for its cooperation on terrorism’. Senior US State Department officials repeatedly accused Musharraf of ‘not doing enough’ to combat Islamists within Pakistan and prevent their infiltration across the Durand Line into southern Afghanistan. The underlined message was Musharraf to go!

According to Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan, the US decided to woo Pakistan Peoples Party, led by Benazir Bhutto at that time, “to serve and be fully responsive to America’s Late Neo-colonialism”. Benazir summoned senior party members to Dubai on 9 June 2007 for a ‘briefing’ by a team from the US Democratic Party’s National Democratic Institute (NDI), ostensibly on the subject of elections in Pakistan. The ruling Republican Party’s International Republican Institute (IRI) had conducted the previous four ‘briefings’ in June and September 2006 and March and April 2007. Benazir leaned towards the Democratic Party in the last one, no doubt, as a hedge against the party’s possible victory at the forthcoming US Presidential Election. Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan argues that even a cursory knowledge of US Imperialism’s standard operating procedure was sufficient to surmise that at least some among the IRI and NDI officers were covert intelligence operatives; and that their ‘briefings’ went beyond ‘tutelage of natives’. Rather they have been grooming the PPP as America’s satrap. The significant events that happened thereafter were:

• George W Bush enabled Benazir’s return from exile by arm-twisting Musharraf to promulgate the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). The NRO of 5th October granted amnesty to politicians active in Pakistan between 1988 and 1999 and effectively wiped the slate clean of corruption charges for both Benazir and Asif Zardari.
• Three weeks later then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it appear as if the Bush Administration wished to bring together ‘moderate’ forces, implying a scenario in which Musharraf and Benazir would join forces as President and Prime Minister respectively. Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte corroborated Rice: ‘Our message’, he intoned, ‘is that we want to work with the government and people of Pakistan’
• Musharraf saw through the US Administration’s transparent ploy to lull him into believing it would not remove him and install Benazir in his place. So, he swiftly invited Nawaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), back from exile in Saudi Arabia to counter Benazir. But even then he could not consolidate his position, especially because he mishandled the judiciary, and was compelled to resign on 18 August 2008.

It is tragic for Pakistani history what happened in the aftermath of assassination of Benazir Bhutto and fulfillment of the agenda of Late Neo-Colonialists—borrowing the term from Dr. Sachithanandam Sathananthan. It is aptly analysed by Dr. Sachithanandam that the reason for ‘Washington’s renewed interest’ in Benazir was Musharraf’s firm opposition to US Late Neo-colonialism, to its manoeuvres to occupy, pacify and ravage Pakistan. In the 19th century, British colonialism waged the ‘war on piracy’ on the high seas ostensibly to bring ‘the light of Christian civilization’. But the British were the most successful pirates, as Spanish and Portuguese historians would gladly confirm. The ‘war on piracy’ was the duplicitous justification trotted out to dominate lucrative maritime trade routes that were in the hands of Chinese, Arab and Tamil maritime empires and to invade kingdoms and/or countries essential to control trade and plunder resources. During most of the 20th century heroic anti-colonial movements and anti-imperialist wars rolled back much of colonial rule, which in some instances however morphed into neo-colonialism. Indonesia after Sukarno, Iran after Mosaddeq and Chile after Allende are well known examples.

One must not forget that the ‘war on terror’ (sic) and ‘promoting democracy’ (sic) are the 21st century equivalents of the 19th century British gobbledygook. Dr.  Sachithanandam says “American Late Neo-colonialism purveys them as moral justification and uses as political cover for intervening and, where necessary, invading resource-rich and strategic countries to overthrow nationalist leaders, install puppet regimes and savage the countries’ wealth. And of course the US is by far the most powerful terrorist force”.

In this background, politicians, intellectuals, members of human rights and civil liberties organisations, journalists, analysts, lawyers—in fact every citizen of Pakistan—should try comprehending the geo-strategic context in which Late Neo-Colonialists are imposing a deadly war on us. Washington, of course, will never be happy with anyone who is determined to steer the ship of Pakistan through the choppy waters of the unfolding New Great Game, in which the West — led by the US — is manoeuvring to contain growing Russian and Chinese influences in Central and West Asia. Obama, like Bush, is irked with our insistence to build the Iran-Pakistan-China gas pipeline. The US successfully managed to force India to betray its earlier commitment for this project. Washington is always alarmed by any leader’s preference for deepening Pakistan-China bilateral relations and forging nuclear cooperation; and more so when Beijing is offered naval facilities at the Gwadar port on Balochistan’s Arabian Sea coast overlooking the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic chokepoint through which approximately 30 per cent of world’s energy supplies pass.

Lessons in history are very clear: Those who are playing in the hands of US must remember the end of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Ziaul Haq—Imperialist forces not only invent and slay enemies but also “create” friends and dump them. Washington always wants a “yes-man” whether in the form of Musharraf, Zardari, Kayani or Nawaz. Its aim is to have nothing less than a firm political foothold in Pakistan and a foreign policy that complements its strategic objectives in Central Asia. It has always dumped the leaders (sic) who refused to “obey” (literally). Washington would have gone along with Musharraf had he focussed on military operations to curb Islamists, but he ventured to defeat them ideologically through moderation and enlightenment. This was not acceptable to Washington. Military action alone cannot defeat guerrillas; but it can kill many of them and in turn induce new recruits — well known points reiterated by William R Polk in Violent Politics (2007) – so that the so-called ‘war on terror’ would not end any time soon—this is the real agenda of Late Neo-Colonialists. Those working for this agenda with US, overtly or covertly, must never forget lessons from our own history—utter military humiliations and dismemberment of a geographical entity. The solution lies in defeating forces of destruction with the support of masses and not becoming part of anti-people agenda of Late Neo-Colonialist.

____________________________________

The writers, tax lawyers, are visiting professors at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).

The corrupt, crooked, fraudulent, deceitful, dishonest—looters of national wealth and plunderers of public money—are haunted by the spectre of NRO (National Reconstruction Ordinance, 2007) these days. They are uncertain of their future as the National Assembly prorogued on November 16, 2009 without considering the infamous NRO leaving it to die its natural death on November 28, 2009. The beneficiaries of this gruesome piece of legislature are the corrupt, rich, mighty, influential bureaucrats and politicians—some of whom hold key positions in the present government. They are not sure about their future as constitutional validity of NRO is sub judice in the Supreme Court. If this law is declared void ab initio—chances of which are very bright—the beneficiaries will have to face legal proceedings. This process—unless thwarted by yet another Ordinance of the same kind by the President, who himself is the prime beneficiary of NRO—may lead to a few very significant disqualifications. This will certainly be a nasty blow for the ruling party!

Though corruption is way of life in Pakistan—all institutions are affected with this malady—but the target of retribution is, as usual, the party that is enemy number one of the establishment. The sacred cows—military and judiciary—are again united to get rid of the peoples’ power. Strangely, nobody asks them to start accountability amongst their ranks and files. Accountability should be for all—selective one is as bad as for none. The ruling elite—indomitable civil-military bureaucracy, corrupt-inefficient politicians and greedy businessmen—perceives long term PPP rule as a threat to status quo. Pakistan has been victim of perpetual corruption—fiscal crimes, tax evasion, plundering and wasting of taxpayers’. No serious effort has ever been made by successive governments—civil and military alike—to crack down on the plunderers of the national wealth. The list of beneficiaries of NRO appearing in the Press and money involved—over Rs. 700 billion—is simply shocking. It proves that rampant corruption and unprecedented tolerance towards black money has made Pakistan a State where the very survival of public institutions is at stake at the hands of ruthless forces representing money power.

The man in khaki, surrounded by a herd of sycophants, in order to perpetuate his rule, promulgated in the late hours of October 5, 2007—just a few hours before the presidential elections—a law that was patently unconstitutional. It was rightly viewed by all sane persons as a step towards promoting and cementing the culture of loot and fraud. Those who got it done took great pride in striking a deal with a military dictator—their supporters in Washington called it a ‘victory’ for winning civilian support for military puppet. Musharraf had, however, a different sinister plan in mind. He was thinking of using this lethal weapon to secure lasting support and subordination of corrupt politicians. On availing amnesty, he was of the opinion, they would confess their guilt and would never be able to revolt against him. Musharraf was confident that the beneficiaries of NRO, as guaranteed by the Washington, would “cooperate” with him—accept him president for another term of 5 years at least, if not more. His plans met a disastrous end due to imprudent and foolish action of November 3, 2007—the USA was made to believe that apex court was supporting the Jihadi outfits. This was sheer nonsense—an unfounded, baseless allegation levelled to justify the most catastrophic decision in Pakistan legal history. In the wake of November 3, 2007 action, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto accused Musharraf of violating the terms of “understanding” reached through guarantors in Washington and London. She decided not to “negotiate” any further with Musharraf. The military dictator, totally isolated, took refuge somewhere else—found new partners to remain in power. But, he miserably failed to win the support of his angry masters. In the process of unlawfully perpetuating his rule, he deprived this nation of a great leader. The blood of that brave, immortal leader will keep on haunting all those who conspired against her—cheated this country and its people. History will take revenge–one day all the ugly faces involved in that Great Conspiracy will be exposed.

The NRO was ostensibly aimed at giving relief to persons “falsely involved for political reasons or through political victimization in any case initiated between 1st day of January, 1986 to 12th day of October, 1999. But in reality it was meant for pardoning the looters of national wealth. The owners of Mayfair property were aggrieved as they were excluded, but their adversaries—owners of Surrey Palace—were extended all benefits. In reality, both want to get same benefit! Non-discrimination is their main concern. They are now meeting to block any attempt from any side to unearth their collossal, filthy wealth.

Through NRO an amendment was made in the National Accountability Ordinance by inserting section 33A which provided automatic withdrawal and termination of “prolonged pending proceedings initiated prior to 12th October, 1999”. It says “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Ordinance or any other law for the time being in force, proceedings under investigation or pending in any court including a high court and the Supreme Court of Pakistan initiated by or on a reference by the National Accountability Bureau inside or outside Pakistan, including proceedings continued under section 33, requests for mutual assistance and civil party to proceedings initiated by the Federal Government before the 12th day of October, 1999 against holders of public office stand withdrawn and terminated with immediate effect and such holders of public office shall also not be liable to any action in future as well under this Ordinance for acts having been done in good faith before the said date….”.

The above provisions was an open admission that all the governments, prior to 12th October 1999, were involved in registering “false” cases under the National Accountability Ordinance against their political adversaries. If this was the case, the question is why did General Musharraf, knowing that these were false cases, spend huge money trying to convict them? It was claimed that since efforts for conviction did not succeed, all the persons, alleged offenders and the proven guilty filers of fake cases, were exonerated! It shows how state affairs were managed during Musharraf-Shaukat era. They admittedly spent hefty amounts from taxpayers’ money to first convict “innocent” people and later even pardoned those who were proved guilty of wrongdoings!

It is now the responsibility of the PPP to bring both Musharraf and Shaukat back home, try them and if found guilty punish them. If PP wants to avoid the wrath of people, it is imperative for it to start the process of accountability of all. Otherwise, everybody will be justified to hold it responsible for conniving with criminals like Musharraf and Shaukat. The politicians must show firmness while dealing with the issue of NRO and its beneficiaries. They should not protect the black sheep amongst them. It will tarnish their image further—besides the masses will lose whatever little faith they have left in the system.

PPP must realise that state-sponsorship of corruption and deliberate tolerance towards financial malpractices will destroy its political future. The worst consequences of such a policy are its pernicious effect on the general moral fabric of society. Such policies put integrity at a discount and place a premium on vulgar and ostentatious display of power and wealth. This shatters the faith of the common man of the dignity of honest labour and virtuous living. PPP must realise that democracy and corruption cannot co-exist. ___________________________________

The writers, tax lawyers, are members of Visiting Faculty of Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS).